3 ms·
> And that's why you're simultaneously arguing that speech cannot be violence but also arguing that it is a violence No matter how many times you elide the mod
by camelite 7y ago
> And that's why you're simultaneously arguing that speech cannot be violence but also arguing that it is a violence
No matter how many times you elide the modifiers before the word violence (before, "a call to", now "movitated by a desire for" or some variant thereof), jlawson's point remains.
- KirinDave 7y agoYou can add those quantifiers if you want, but jlawson's argument is still an obvious double standard. Maybe we could get together and talk about it over a nice frosty milkshake? Speaking of talking it out, I'm curious how you found this thread. Given it's age and moderation status I doubt it's organically.
- camelite 7y ago> You can add those quantifiers if you want, but jlawson's argument is still an obvious double standard. Add? Put them back where you took them from, rather. You can claim that until the cows come home and it will still be true that jlawson hasn't accused you of violence. > Maybe we could get together and talk about it over a nice frosty milkshake? Cute, but no deal. > Speaking of talking it out, I'm curious how you found this thread. Given it's age and moderation status I doubt it's organically. The article was on the front page when I clicked it. You last comment was about three hours old when I commented.